## Editors' Note

**Note on an Article by M. Behr**

M. Beer. Zur Lage der bäuerlichen Grundbesitzer. 
*Neue Zeit* 1894/5, XIII, 2, pp. 118–122.

Responses from English embassies to the Ministry of Salisbury on a request of August 8, 1890. (What is the name of the Blue Book?*)

*Report...*

*Among other things: Holland. Grouping of farms by livestock.*
(In Behr only the general figures of farms with 6 and milking cows.
1879: 25,071 proprietors + 16,105 lessees
1887: 16,629 " + 14,261 "

Norway. Notes on the condition of the Peasant Proprietors. London, 1893.

# VI. MATERIALS FOR THE PAMPHLET "TO THE VILLAGE POOR"

The materials for the pamphlet consist of variants of the plan for the pamphlet, plans of individual chapters, as well as numerical material used in this work. The pamphlet was written in March–April 1903. See *Works*, vol. V, pp. 260–517, and also pp. 117, note 97.

## PLANS FOR THE PAMPHLET

### FIRST VARIANT.

TO THE VILLAGE POOR.

I. Workers' struggle in the cities, which many have already heard about.

2. What do workers want? (Social Democratic party. Socialism.)
   Abolition of all exploitation.
   Socialized (socialist) production.
   Small and large production.
   International character of the workers (social democracy movement).

3. The same for peasants. Abolition of taxes, landlessness, capital, etc.

4. Union of the village poor with workers.

5. Agrarian order [of Russia] (4 horizontal bands—illusions of "communal principles").

6. 6½ million—union with workers in cities (and winning over 2 million to our side).

7. Deceptiveness of hopes based on personal diligence, skill, etc., industriousness, thrift, etc.

8. Obstacles to the union of these 6½ million.

9. Political lack of rights. Struggle with workers for political freedom.

10. Civil lack of rights of the peasant, in particular. Communal collective responsibility, lack of freedom of movement, attachment to the commune, attachment to the landowner's estate through quit-rent labor, debt bondage, cutoffs, etc. And = remnants of serfdom law.

11. Necessity of liberating all peasantry (and middle and bourgeois) in order to liberate the poor for their struggle for socialism.

12. Analysis of the demands of our agrarian program.
    12a. Program for rural workers.
    12b. "Agrarian" (= peasant) program.

13. Distrust of well-to-do peasantry: will it go further, or not?

14. Experience with peasantry in other countries: betrayal of well-to-do and middle peasantry after political and agrarian reform.

15. Utilization of this experience for Russia, i.e., union of 6½ million in advance with urban workers, with the social democratic party.

16. This union begins now in Europe too. We in Russia must immediately solidify this link and thereby ease our struggle for socialism.

### SEPARATE REMARKS ON THE FIRST VARIANT.

Neither fish nor fowl
improved implements: sell the plow and the soul
cooperation
"high profitability"
deception = lottery
4 questions:
landowners
wealthy peasants
3½ to 3 million poor people
struggle for money.

Cooperatives
"high profitability"
For small production—diligence and zeal
deception = lottery, upward attraction
4 questions

### SECOND VARIANT.

1. Workers' struggle in cities. Struggle against the government.
   Its spread and intensification.

2. What do workers want? They struggle
   a) for political freedom. (Brief exposition)
   b) for socialism (idem).
   
   aa) Extension to peasants
   bb)

3. Necessity of the union of poor peasants with urban workers. [Perhaps aa and bb go here?]

3a. Where is the middle peasant to go? to the side of proprietors and the rich or to the side of workers and the poor?

4. Agrarian order of Russia (4 horizontal bands—illusions of "communal principles," etc.)
   6½ (+ 2) against
   The small peasant is pulled in two directions:
   (1) Land flows to labor
   (2) Colossal organization of mir production.
   (3) Cooperation.

5. More detail on petty-bourgeois illusions (industriousness, etc.). Deceptive upward attraction on the ladder = lottery.

6. Transformation of the rural proletarian and semi-proletarian into a social democrat = participation (in the ranks of the party) in the struggle for political freedom and for socialism.

   Peasant movement of 1902. Revolutionary content and illusions.

7. Final goal (and immediate demands).
   a — political transformations
   b — labor legislation for rural proletariat
   c — aid in liberating peasantry from remnants of serfdom law
   
   (workers' immediate program)
   (peasant " " ")

   Appendix I (draft program)
   Appendix II

8. What remnants of serfdom law? Analysis of the demands of the agrarian program.
   Cutoffs at the end.
   [in this order:
   (1) abolition of redemption payments
   (2) freedom to dispose of land
   (3) return of redemption payments
   (4) loans
   (5) cutoffs]

   Lies of the socialists-revolutionaries (encroachment of mir principles)

   Liberation of both the well-to-do peasant and the middle and proletarian from serfdom oppression, liberation for free struggle for socialism.

9. Class struggle within peasantry. Position of bourgeois (and middle) peasantry. Its possible (and probable) betrayal (experience of Western Europe).

   Particular organization of proletarian peasantry for union with urban workers in struggle for socialism
   ["Expropriation"]
   its conditions

9. (1) If cutoffs, then and further?
   (2) Peasant rich men? Their position?
   (3) Experience of Western Europe
   (4) Class struggle within the commune in the village.

NB: Peasant movement of 1902.

### THIRD VARIANT.

1. Workers' struggle in cities.

2. What do social democrats want?

(3–6) Wealth and poverty in the village.

4. Participation of village poor in workers' struggle. Union of village workers with urban ones.

5. Abolition of remnants of serfdom law.

6. Class struggle in the village.

### FOURTH VARIANT.

I. Struggle of urban workers.

II. What do social democrats want?

III. Wealth and poverty, proprietors and workers in the village.

IV. Where is the middle peasant to go?

V. Union of village workers with urban ones.

VI. Abolition of remnants of serfdom law.

VII. Class struggle in the village.

## GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS FOR ANALYZING CLASS GROUPS IN THE VILLAGE

[*Note on graphic calculations and distributions—see source*]

## PLANS OF INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS OF THE PAMPHLET

**IV. General: improvement of economy and "union" for this with the rich;**

(Cooperatives: credit and dairy cooperatives
(German data)
[resettlement])

1. ("high profitability"
2. "zeal," diligence, industriousness—[Lilienshpreitung-umprr]—pull upward on the ladder
3. One they lift up, ten they deceive. Lottery...
4. For small production. (Socialism and small production)

Supporters of small production
4 questions

6. [Slander against socialism.]

**V. For what improvements in the life of peasantry do social democrats struggle?**

1. Social democrats against all bourgeoisie, all living on others' labor.

2. For all improvements in the peasant's life that are possible to obtain, for any liberation from oppression by landowners, state, officials, police, priests.

3. Political freedom—
   all need it, and workers and peasants especially

4. Inviolability of person, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

5. Freedom of movement.

6. Abolition of estates.

7. Election of officials and prosecution in court.

8. Militarism.

9. Separation of church from state. Free education.

10. Progressive tax.

*(γ) Factory laws in the village.*
- workers' day
- weekly rest
- night labor prohibition
- responsibility for injuries
- pensions for the elderly
- prohibition of deductions
- extension of factory inspection with elected representatives of workers.

Moreover, not only with rural workers, but also with peasants: § VI.

Answers of landowners to social democrats.

§ VI section 7–5:

a. Three demands — union of interests of rich and poor — further cutoffs depend on the rich. — 8. Socialist revolution — important: not to ask for much, but to take a step toward uniting the peasants

1) Negotiation will reveal the interests of rich and poor.
2) First step: together with the rich for the most modest demands.
3) Union of village poor with the help of committees.
4) Further: struggle for socialism.

5) Some say: not cutoffs, but all the land from the landowners. Poor — socialism. Wealthy peasants??

6) Cannot rely on wealthy peasants.

**VII. Class struggle in the village.**

1. What is class struggle? Struggle of the oppressed part of the population against oppressors. Struggle against serfdom law. — Struggle of the poor against the rich.

2. Peasant movement of 1902. Heroism of the bands: their great beginning. We must continue it. But it is necessary to analyze why they were defeated?

3. From lack of consciousness, from lack of preparation. Peasants did not know what to demand. Peasants did not know who their enemy was. Peasants did not see the connection between landowners and government. [Peasants did not understand the necessity of an alliance of village and urban proletarians.] Peasants wanted life to be according to justice, according to God, not knowing how to achieve this.

4. Our answer. Once more: Alliance of village and city against — [distrust] — 3 demands together.

5. Practical methods of union and struggle.
   Agitation. Circles. Support of urban workers.

§ VII.
1) Peasant movement of 1902.
2) Heroism. Reprisal.
3) How to achieve victory?
4) Must understand clearly. Not God's — but human demands.
5) Must prepare alliance with urban workers—
   social democratic circles.
   Agitation (leaflets, books).
   Class struggle in the village (distrust of wealthy peasants).
6) Support of workers when they begin in the cities.

## EXCERPT FROM THE BROCKHAUS ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY

**Volume 12 "Land Ownership"**

Land ownership in Russia (Encyclopedic Dictionary)

In 49 provinces of European Russia (excluding the Don Region) 1877–78:

State lands: 150.4 million desyatinas = 38.5%
Appanage lands: 7.4 " " = 1.9%
Institutions and juridical persons
(churches, monasteries, cities, towns, etc.): 8.0 " " = 2.2%
Peasant (communal) lands: 131.0 " " = 33.6%
  - arable: 116.8
  - (allotment non-arable): 13.7
  - appropriated communal: 0.7
Total communal: 48.6%
Total hereditary (non-communal): 15.4%
Private proprietors' lands: 90.4 " " = 25.8%
  - Physical persons: 91.6
  - Societies and companies: 1.8

Total: 391.4 million desyatinas = 100.0%

State lands: 150.4 million desyatinas
Other lands: 240.7 " "

Peasant allotment: 131.4 million desyatinas
Other privately owned: 109.3 " "

Of state lands: 69.3% forest (100 million desyatinas in Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Olonets, and Perm provinces). 28% non-arable land and 2.7% arable (less than 4 million desyatinas).

The three northern provinces (Arkhangelsk, Olonets, Vologda) belong almost entirely to the state (97, 93, and 83% of provincial area). Two eastern provinces (Perm and Vyatka)—about half (51 and 48%). In these five provinces there are 13,372 million desyatinas of state land (88.7% of state lands).

Peasant communes in 49 provinces: about 140 thousand with 22,396,069 revision souls: 116,854,855 desyatinas

Proprietors' communes: about 10 thousand: 33,755,759 desyatinas
Appanage communes: 940,186: 4,333,261 desyatinas
State communes: 9,643,606: 57,130,141 desyatinas
Others: about 1.8 thousand: 21,635,694 desyatinas

## PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP

**Small:**
- Less than 10 desyatinas: 244,376 owners = 50.8%; 959,450 desyatinas = 1.0%
- 10–100 desyatinas: 160,506 = 33.4%; 5,321,218 = 5.8%

**Medium:**
- 100–500: 47,482 = 9.9%; 11,325,987 = 12.4%
- 500–1,000: 13,458 = 2.8%; 27,559,544 = 30.1%

**Large:**
- 1,000–5,000: 13,458 = 2.8%; 27,559,544 = 30.1%
- 5–10 thousand: 1,444 = 0.3%; 15,826 = 3.4%; 9,876,615 = 10.8%; 64,667,313 = 70.6%
- Over 40 thousand desyatinas: 924 = 0.2%; 27,231,154 = 29.7%

Total: 481,358 = 100%; 91,605,845 desyatinas

**By estates:**

Nobles: 76 thousand = 23.8%; 273.0 million desyatinas = 56.7%

Merchants and honored citizens, artisans: 31.8 thousand = 9.4%; 6.0 million desyatinas = 1.3%

Peasants: 19.8 thousand = 12.6%; 22.0 million desyatinas = 4.6%

Others (clergy, soldiers, foreigners, etc.): 2.6 thousand = 2.6%; 1.7 million desyatinas = 0.4%

**Summary:**

76 thousand large landowners = 11/8 of peasant bourgeoisie: 273 million desyatinas + 93 million = 224 million

26 thousand of middle peasantry + (3 million peasants): 22 million desyatinas + 109 million = 224 million

6½ million of the poor: 73 million desyatinas

[Various calculations and distributions of households and land by class groups...]

## DISTRIBUTION OF HORSES AMONG PEASANTS IN RURAL COMMUNES

1888 and 1891. 49 provinces of European Russia

| Horses | Homesteads | % | Horses | % |
|--------|-----------|---|--------|---|
| 0 | 2,777,485 | 27.3 | — | 17.2 |
| 1 | 2,909,042 | 28.6 | 2,909,042 | — |
| 2 | 2,247,827 | 22.0 | 4,495,654 | 26.5 |
| 3 | 1,072,298 | 10.6 | 3,216,894 | 18.9 |
| 4 and more | 1,155,907 | 11.3 | 10,162,559 | 37.4 |
| | 10,162,559 | 100 | 16,960,788 | 100 |

For 38 provinces in 1889/4: 8,288,987 peasant homesteads—11,560,358 horses:

Horseless: 2,641,754 = 31.9%
With 1 horse: 22.3%
With 2 horses: 20.2%
With 3 horses: 9.7%
With 4 and more: 8%

NB: Horses in 50 provinces of European Russia: 19,681,769, of which 15.3 are with private proprietors.

Horses in 50 provinces:
- 1846: 16,056,000
- 1861: 15,300,000
- 1870: 15,611,400
- 1882: 20,015,000
- 1888: 19,663,000
- 1898: 17,004,300

## LETTER TO LENIN ON CUTOFFS

March 29, 1903

Dear Comrade!

Regarding the grouping of peasant communes by allotment, I am sending what I have at hand (Khodsky, "Land and Farmer," vol. A, p. 238—according to statistics of land ownership of 1878. He in turn uses a summary for 49 provinces: "Statistical Yearbook of the Russian Empire," Series III, issue 10.—Land Ownership of European Russia 1877–78. St. Petersburg, 1886).

Here is the summary:

**Former proprietor, appanage, and state peasants with allotment per revision soul:**

| Allotment | Number of Communes | Number of Revision Souls | Amount of Allotment Land, desyatinas |
|-----------|------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------|
| 1 desyatina and less | 4,477 | 640,180 | 409,562 |
| More than 1, up to 2 des. | 10,885 | 1,665,501 | 2,654,068 |
| More than 2 to 4 des. | 59,125 | 8,230,010 | 25,653,667 |
| More than 4 to 6 des. | 40,036 | 5,818,060 | 28,601,010 |
| More than 6 to 10 des. | 15,021 | 3,320,513 | 24,895,814 |
| More than 10 desyatinas | 4,184 | 920,028 | 13,005,100 |
| **Total** | **133,728** | **20,594,292** | **95,219,161** |

Other categories of peasants: 5,900 communes, 1,801,777 souls, 21,635,694 desyatinas

**Total: 139,628 communes, 22,396,069 souls, 116,854,855 desyatinas**

To show the relative significance of these lands, here is the general distribution of land ownership in 49 provinces, 1877–78:

a) Land in ownership and use of **peasant communes**: 454,372,457 des. = 33.6%
   Of which:
   - Allotment arable lands: 116,854,855 des. = 29.0%
   - Non-arable allotment lands: 13,754,831 des. = 3.5%
   - Appropriated by entire communes: 762,771 des. = 0.2%
   - Of which: in private ownership: 95,384,470 des. = 9.8%
   - In ownership of societies and companies: 91,605,854 des. = 23.5%

b) Appanage lands: 7,367,740 des. = 4.9%

c) Lands of other proprietors (churches, monasteries, cities, towns, and other institutions): 450,409,977 des. = 38.3%

d) Other: 8,572,622 des. = 2.2%

**Total: 391,103,966 desyatinas = 100%**

That is what I could extract from Khodsky. In doing so, I divided the groups with allotment up to 2 desyatinas and more than 6 desyatinas into two parts. It was impossible to divide the groups with allotment from 2 to 4 and from 4 to 6 desyatinas according to Khodsky's data.

There is also an older calculation (Yuridicheskiy Vestnik, 1892, issue 4) by Skvortsov, which refers to 1878 and 49 provinces, where he made an estimate of homesteads as they existed in 1878 based on the number of revision souls in these homesteads and calculation. I do not remember the exact methods, but apparently he takes all peasant lands, excluding only the Cossacks; I cannot vouch for the accuracy of his calculations.

| Size of Allotment per Homestead | Number of Homesteads | % | Amount of Land (millions of des.) | % |
|--------------------------------|-------------------|---|------------------------------|---|
| Up to 5 des. | 892 thousand | 10.0 | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| 5–10 | 2,219 " | 26.0 | 17.4 | 15.6 |
| 10–15 | 3,289 " | 39.1 | 39.7 | 35.5 |
| 15–20 | 1,025 " | 12.2 | 16.0 | 14.3 |
| 20 and more | 972 " | 11.6 | 31.7 | 28.4 |
| | 8,397 | 100 | 109.8 | 100 |

(Compare: are these not the same figures cited in the Brockhaus Encyclopedic Dictionary, article "Peasants"?)

On the reverse I give a more detailed table by categories of peasants, borrowed from Khodsky. On a separate sheet I am sending you an extract on cutoffs (I will prepare a note on the latter for the newspaper and will send it to Geneva).

All the best. Firm handshake...

**Grouping of communes of former proprietor, appanage, and state peasants by size of arable land allotment per 1 revision male soul (1878).**

[*Detailed table of commune groupings with percentages and quantities...*]

**Cutoffs.**

On the basis of information collected by the editorial commissions on the amount of land used by peasants in 1861 (in the Statistical Collection, IV, p. 188), and according to information on land ownership of former proprietor peasants after 1861 (Statistical Collection of 1878)—it is possible to establish the existence of cutoffs in 28 provinces (NB, since the 1861 data are underestimated, the sizes too are underestimated; thus this is a minimum of cutoffs)—all in **thousands of desyatinas:**

| Province | Had (1861) | Cutoff | % Barshchina Peasants |
|----------|-----------|--------|----------------------|
| **Non-black-earth belt** | | | |
| (1) Pskov | 880 | 75 | 81–90% and 37.3% |
| Novgorod | 1,082 | 54 | 75.5% |
| Tver | 1,453 | 58 | 69–75% |
| Moscow | 923 | 54 | 158–12% |
| (5) Vladimir | 1,289 | 102 | 102–7% |
| Smolensk | 1,412 | 72 | 5.1% |
| Kaluga | 960 | 44 | 71.7% |
| Yaroslavl | 997 | 12 | 77.5% |
| (9) Kostroma | 1,419 | 12 | 675–6.7% |

[*Table continues with additional provinces and data...*]